SZFZW v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2007] FCA 340

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZFZW v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2007] FCA 340

SZFZW v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
NSD 2456 OF 2006

TAMBERLIN J
6 MARCH 2007
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2456 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	SZFZW Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	6 MARCH 2007
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements fixed in the amount of $2,000.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2456 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	SZFZW Appellant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	TAMBERLIN J
DATE:	6 MARCH 2007
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a decision of a Federal Court Magistrate given on 27 November 2006.  There are three grounds of appeal.  The first is that the Magistrate did not make a finding of fact that the Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) was not able to make the right decision because it provided the appellant a wrong interpreter.  There is no substance in this ground of appeal because there is an express reference in the Tribunal’s reasons for decision to the effect that the appellant was happy with an interpreter in the Russian language.

2. There are two other grounds of appeal which are so general as to not convey any specific meaning, namely that the Tribunal did not apply the “correct test on nexus to Convention” and “did not assess some material facts in the application”.  When the matter came on for hearing before me today I asked the appellant what he wished to say in relation to the appeal and he was unable to, and did not make any effort to, address these questions.

3. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that there has been any error of law or principle in this matter in the decision of either the Magistrate or the Tribunal which would provide any proper basis for setting aside the decision below.  I note that the Tribunal based its determination on a lack of credibility, which in turn was based on internal inconsistencies in the evidence given by the appellant.  These are specifically referred to and dealt with in the course of the Tribunal’s reasons.  The Tribunal also addressed what it considered to be a lack of knowledge of the Erk Party.

4. The view which the Tribunal formed was that, as a consequence of the first Tribunal hearing when the appellant did not manifest much knowledge about the Erk Party, there had been efforts made by the appellant to learn more about that Party, and thus on the second hearing the appellant was better informed.  This was used by the Magistrate as a basis for the conclusion that the appellant had not given credible evidence.  Accordingly, the version of what had transpired in Uzbekistan was not accepted for reasons of credibility.

5. I have considered the decision of the Tribunal and also the reasons given by the learned Magistrate and am unable to identify any error of law or principle which would warrant the granting of this appeal.  Accordingly, the order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed and the appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs and disbursements fixed in the amount of $2,000.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Tamberlin

Associate:

Dated:       12 March 2007

Counsel for the Appellants:	None
Solicitor for the Appellants:	None
Counsel for the Respondent:	R. White
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore
Date of Hearing:	6 March 2007
Date of Judgment:	6 March 2007